icarlyfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Seddie/@comment-3247345-20120811045054/@comment-3247345-20120812063621
@Arrow2010 Most of what you're saying seems to rely on the assumption that Sam and Cat and Victorious could not exist side by side. That's false because Ariana could play Cat on both shows. iCarly and Victorious didn't film at the same time. iCarly would film for however long then the set would be taken down and they would film Victorious. They wouldn't conflict. That may be more work for Ariana but since Victorious had a chance at being renewed before Gibby came along she was clearly prepared for that. Victorious and S&C could have (and and would have had to) film the same way as iCarly and Victorious did. "S&C wouldn't have been made if Ariana and Jennette hadn't agreed to do the show in the first place. You're putting all the blame on Noah for doing the exact same thing they did." I'm inclined to put most of the blame on Nick and Dan. But as long as we're debating which actors/actresses to put blame on, you're right that all 3 accepted roles. But the situations in which they did so are not identical. Sam and Cat was done deal when Gibby was green lit. It was set to replace iCarly and Victorious very well could have coexisted with it. Dan never had and couldn't have 3 shows. More on this below. When Sam and Cat was being negotiated iCarly was already done for. Victorious could have continued. There was only one other show in existence. When Gibby came along Victorious and Sam Cat existed. Two shows already existed, not one. Since 3 shows wasn't an option for reasons I'll talk about below something had to go. That had to be Victorious since they wouldn't cancel a show they haven't even aired yet (S&C). So you're right that Noah did the same thing as Jennette and Ariana. But since it was in different situations, it's not the same when assigning blame for the demise of Victorious. ""So even if accepting roles in the show that got Victorious canceled put them at fault for Victorious ending it still wouldn't be Jennette or Ariana's fault." That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense." It does make sense if you drop the incorrect assumptions that S&C and Victorious couldn't have coexisted and that the situation was the same when S&C were negotiated. "I don't understand your logic. Explain to me how Gibby could have possibly gotten in the way of Victorious getting a fourth season. Neither show would've had anything to do with the other." This statement seems to imply that S&C would have gotten in the way of Victorious. This is false. I already explained how the filming would work. Ariana was prepared to accept being on both shows. They are not incompatable. As for how Gibby got in the in the way, it has to with how Dan can only have two shows. Why he can only have two shows in unclear. There could be several reasons for this. The first may be that Nick simply doesn't want to pay for 3 shows from Dan. The second could be due to Nick's scheduling of episodes. While the high amount of weekends without any new episodes means this reason is ridiculous, Nick has been absolutely idiotic about aring episodes since late 2010-early 2011. It's not unspeakable for Nick to do this because of scheduling because of this idiocy. In short, I wouldn't put it past them The third reason for this might be that Dan can't juggle 3 shows at once. This may be Nick's perception or Dan may have told them that. No matter what the reasons, it's telling that Dan has never had more than two shows on Nick at once. Combine this with the fact that Nick didn't have good reason to cancel Victorious. The ratings were good and the actors wanted to do a season 4. There was no arugment for ending Victorious. Something outside of Victorious was going on. Gibby was the only outside factor since S&C was set to air alongside Victorious if it got renewed. "That's like saying iCarly should've been cancelled to make way for the series premiere of Victorious or BTR."'' This analogy is inapposite. iCarly was not in the situation Gibby was. In fact, iCarly was in a situation similar to what S&C was in. One show was ending (Drake and Josh) and the other could be renewed (Zoey 101). iCarly was in the same place S&C is in. It was newcomer in a situation with one show ending and the other show possibly continuing. The difference is Zoey 101 continued and Victorious didn't. If you want to make an analogy then Drake and Josh corresponds to iCarly, Zoey 101 corresponds to Victorious, and iCarly corresponds to Sam and Cat. Gibby doesn't fit into this analogy because Dan didn't pull this, or at least he waited. If he waited then Victorious might correspond to Gibby, but this is doubtful since Dan didn't try a stunt like this 5 years ago. As for BTR, it's irrelevant because Dan doesn't write for BTR. ''"You're putting all the blame on the show and actor that have nothing to do with Victorious." Again, I blame Nick and Dan way more than the actors.'' I'm not saying Noah did anything wrong. He would have been stupid to turn down the role. I'm just saying that him taking the role pretty much spelled the end for Victorious. I'm not suggesting that he should have sacraficed something that big for the sake of maybe prolonging the life of Victorious. I'm being honest about the effect of making the right move had on Victorious. I would have liked to see Gibby put off so Victorious could have a season 4. But Noah couldn't have suggested that. He faced a yes or no decision. He didn't have the option of saying "maybe later". Looking at it from Noah's perspective ven if he had that option I still think he should gone forward with Gibby. I'm not criticizing Noah's choice. I'm being honest about that choice's implications for Victorious. As for blaming Gibby, that's my central point, I've made my case for it and there's no need to repeat why Gibby is to blame for Victorious ending. Jennette and Ariana were not in that position so their decison did not have the same implications for Victorious that Noah's did. Ariana was prepared to be in both shows. ''If either show is responsible for the end of Victorious, it's S&C. Once again, this is based on the false assumption that S&C couldn't coexist. They were planning to have Ariana play Cat in Victorious and S&C if Victorious was renewed. It didn't get renewed because Gibby came along, not because the shows couldn't coexist. "I can't believe we're even having this conversation." I'll ignore the condescending nature of this statement and simply say that we're having this conversation because your argument is based on incorrect assumptions. "Think about it. Imagine if someone who hadn't ever seen Victorious watched the premiere of S&C and thought it sucked. They'd see that Cat also stars on Victorious and probably pass on it. S&C, much more than Gibby, could have seriously affectedVictorious' ratings, especially if both shows had been in-continutity with each other." This point is mostly irrelevant since I only mentioned the ratings in the context of saying that Ariana and Jennette lied for good reason. That good reason is that admitting that either show caused the end of Victorious will only damage ratings from the loss of pissed off Victorious fans. To the extent that you're trying to argue that Victorious was canceled because Sam and Cat might hurt its ratings, the point is not irrelevant but it is incorrect. First of all S&C is would be likely to be better written than Victorious. Dan puts his latest show first and the quality of his older shows suffers. Look what happened to iCarly when Victorious started. Second of all the number of people that haven't seen Victorious that would hate S&C would be very small. Most people will have already seen Victorious and have already made their decision. The number of people watching Sam and Cat who don't like it and haven't seen Victorious and decide against giving Victorious a shot based on S&C is too small to base a decision to cancel a highly rated show that the actors want to continue off of. Third off all Victorious is more likely to influence S&C's ratings, not the other way around. Victorious already has its fanbase. The idea that S&C's promo would have any noticable effects is ridiculous. In fact, Nick would proably use Victorious's ratings to boost S&C's by showing S&C after Victorious. They do that for How To Rock and Dan doesn't even write that. Since Dan will be writing S&C, they're almost guaranteed to use this tactic. Not only will they do that they'll make it a point to make sure everyone knows that S&C comes from the writer of Victorious. Victorious would help Sam and Cat and Sam and Cat wouldn't do anything for Victorious except possibly help the ratings a tiny bit. The affects might be more noticable if they were in continuity of each other, but not by much. "Again: Jenette and Ariana aren't responsible, then neither is Noah." Again: I mostly blame Dan and Nick. Noah made the right decision. But I refuse to lie to myself about what that decision did to Victorious. Jennette and Arina were in a different situation than Noah so nothing they did caused Victorious to end.